I am in no hurry to put the phrase back, because it should perhaps be given fuller context, but I certainly cannot agree with either your assessment, or your apparent attitude. If it seems meaningless to you, you are certainly free to indicate why, but it is a truthful comment, and well bespeaks a fact that is true of many words, especially many casually used words like philosophy, and religion, and even science. Love of Wisdom, Faith in a Greater Presence, and Knowledge of Truth, are indicated by the terms, but they have all been applied and misapplied in many ways: to casual ideas of the most shallow who have no great love or knowledge of Wisdom; to faiths proclaimed to be about Reality, that are far more faiths in one's own bigotries, and to searches that are claimed to be for knowledge of what is true, but are often searches for confirmations of one's own presumptions. I will probably replace the statement, but feel I should examine the full context of this apparently introductory comment, and among the works by Russell in my collection I am not sure I presently have a copy of this, and am not sure where it is, if I do. ~ Moby 19:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think anonymous (and unsigned) User:217.81.69.52 has a point, though I also find his/her vehemence unseemly. Wikiquote is filled with far too many quotes that only seem to have meaning to the people adding them, or those who are already aware of the context. Moby may be quite right, that Russell's words presage an important linguistic insight, but I found Moby's explanation more interesting and useful than the quote. Surely Russell has made this point more eloquently and succinctly elsewhere, perhaps in said full context? — Jeff Q 21:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The quote about race appearing first in this collection can't be coincidence; it seems likely that someone wanted to give greatest prominence to the quote that reflected worst on Russell. Is there any policy on what order quotations should appear in, or are we free to start a revert war on the subject with no reference by which to choose what is most appropriate? - (ciphergoth) 82.70.194.38 08:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

After some searching, I'm starting to doubt the authenticity of this quote, but I don't have a copy of Marriage and Morals to hand to check. 82.70.194.38 09:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this specific quote, but I listened to a talk by Noam Chomsky here, and in the Q&A section (at about 41 minutes) someone asked him about Russell, and Chomsky mentioned that Russell made some horrible/racist/genocidal remarks, though still most of what he did was admirable... So it's quite possible that this quote is accurate. Therefore I suggest not to remove it without checking the source first. iddo999 11:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as checking the quote, 82.70.194.38, I highly recommend your local library. I use mine to fact-check quotes frequently. Most libraries should have a copy of Marriage and Morals. Always remember that these things get fixed by the people who care most about each article. — Jeff Q(talk) 19:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought a few of the interestings quotes are missing. I'm posting them here first:

"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths." - Impact of Science on Society

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (couldn't find any sources for this one)

This is a common but unsourced version; the very similar thing that Russell did write is contained in the page: “The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” (But it is probably useful to retain this widely-quoted version here, for the benefit of those seeking an attribution of it to Russell.) Gthb 13:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This immediately brought this quote from Yeats to mind:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
The Second Coming - William Butler Yeats

"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." - Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom." - Unpopular Essays, Outline of Intellectual Rubbish

When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless. - Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

And I think the source for this quote "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true." is "On the Value of Scepticism" Alex 01:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

In general, you better just be bold and edit the article, because that way there's usually higher probability that it'd generate responses from other editors. But accompanying it with useful comments in discussion is appreciated, of course. BTW, do you also have a source for the "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." quote? I'm guessing that it was said in relation to WWI? But I don't know.... iddo999 06:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The following quotes are attributed to Russell. Does anyone know what the sources are?:

"The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution."

"Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position."

Although WP itself isn't a reliable source, I have confirmed that the U.S. Library of Congress has a 1931 copy of this book, by the same publisher (LCCN 47043127 , call number QC6. R8 1931). I admit curiosity about how someone could intelligently comment on something that wouldn't exist until nearly a quarter of a century later, although atomic energy and weaponry were topics of discussion among scientists well before they became physical reality. I would suggest we need to examine the source to see exactly what the context of this quote was (the parenthetical "[to hydrogen bombs]" is suspicious) and resolve this apparent paradox. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this quote in H.S.M. Coxeter's book Geometry "Mathematics possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty- a beauty cold and austere, like that of a sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature... sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show."

Bertrand Russell (1872- )" he wasn't dead when the book was published I don't want to fiddle in a wiki that I am not a part of so I will leave it up to you. Cheers--Cronholm144 from en.wikipedia

This can already be found on the Wikiquote page as a Sourced quotation from The Study of Mathematics (1902). - InvisibleSun 04:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence; it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.

You could tell by his [Aldous Huxley] conversation which volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica he'd been reading. One day it would be Alps, Andes and Apennines, and the next it would be the Himalayas and the Hippocratic Oath. (Source: Parris, M., Scorn: With Added Vitriol, London: Penguin, 1996, quoting Russell's 1963 letter to Ronald W. Clark)

The saviors of the world, society's last hope.

The universe may have a purpose, but nothing we know suggests that, if so, this purpose has any similarity to ours.

There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge.

To choose one sock from each of infinitely many pairs of socks requires the Axiom of choice, but for shoes the Axiom is not needed. (Sourced to My Philosophical Development and on project page. David Pierce (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC))

War does not determine who is right — only who is left.

(This was attributed by an IP to the video game Fallout 3 in this edit to the War article.)

This is most often attributed to Russell, when an author is given, but without any sourced citations, and the earliest occurrence I have found of it is in Coronet v. 23 (November 1947 - April 1948) , p. 150, where it seems to have been provided as "philosophy footnote" without mention of an author. ~ Kalki 02:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am neither as drunk as a Lord, nor as sober as a Judge. I am more in the condition of a Lord Justice.

When we look at a rock what we are seeing is not the rock, but the effect of the rock upon us.

Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.

Another that's widely attributed to him is, "No matter how eloquently a dog may bark, he cannot tell you that his parents were poor, but honest." I don't know if it's verifiable, though. Angr 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a close paraphrase of an actual quote cited in the Autobiography theme article. I hesitate to add it here because this article is already so long. ~ Ningauble 15:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Thee" was an objective pronoun, that is, it applied when the person in question was having something done to them ("unto thee") rather than doing something ("wouldst thou?"), so Bertrand's uses of "thee" should both have been "thou". It's equivalent to having said, if he'd been talking about himself: "Me will find out in time" and "Me might observe incidentally". 213.122.13.17 12:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell's prescription for an "ideal form of a work in philosophy" (quoting Arthur Danto in the. November 17, 1997 issue of the Nation): "It should begin with propositions no one would question and conclude with propositions no one would accept." (Wolff 1998, vii)

Wolff, Robert Paul. 1998. In Defense of Anarchism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

In The Philosophy of Logical Atomism (1918), Russell writes that "the point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it." ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, friends. It is my understanding now that the Wikiquote page of Bertrand Russell has had, in the past, more pictures illustrating the quotes than it did at the moment that I started adding new ones. Apparently, those previous pictures were added mainly by Kalki, but then someone decided to delete them. I am not sure how that works, or should work, as I am rather new to editing Wikiquote. Of course that I, myself, try to add only images that (seem to me) appropriate, but I fear that their relevance may inevitably be subjective. So I ask here if I should continue to try to illustrate the page, or will my efforts be in vain? I hope that we can make Russell's the best Wikiquote page possible! Thanks in advance for your input. Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2012 (GMT)

There is an attempt to lend clarity at Wikiquote:Image use policy, adopted earlier this year. It is probably best to avoid images whose relevance might be seen as subjective, and stick with ones that are more literal than interpretive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. As is known to all, the Bertrand Russell page is long, but I would like to know if you consider it too long. If you do (as the experienced UDScott does), there are, I think, mainly three different things that we could do:

1) Split the article into multiple sections (which was what UDScott did very recently);

Needless to say, I agree with UDScott that the size of the article is an important concern, but I, myself, think that a better way to reduce the size of the page would be to trim the article, instead of simply moving important sections of it to other pages.

I do not wish to upset anyone, particularly those who worked hard to add the quotes to the page. But cuts will hurt. That is why I am asking you if you agree that they should be done.

So, do you agree that the article needs to be trimmed? If you do not agree, no quote should be deleted, of course. But if you do agree with the trimming suggestion, then we first need to discuss which (parts of) quotes to delete.

Below are some of my suggestions. I think that the easiest place to start is with Russell's Nobel Lecture, "What Desires Are Politically Important?". It is very brilliant but, in any case, a link to the lecture is provided, so I do not think that it is necessary to quote it at such length in the main page. The lines that I suggest we can delete are the following (strikethrough):

suggested lines

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are some desires which, though very powerful, have not, as a rule, any great political importance. Most men at some period of their lives desire to marry, but as a rule they can satisfy this desire without having to take any political action. There are, of course, exceptions; the rape of the Sabine women is a case in point. And the development of northern Australia is seriously impeded by the fact that the vigorous young men who ought to do the work dislike being wholly deprived of female society. But such cases are unusual, and in general the interest that men and women take in each other has little influence upon politics.

The desires that are politically important may be divided into a primary and a secondary group. In the primary group come the necessities of life: food and shelter and clothing. When these things become very scarce, there is no limit to the efforts that men will make, or to the violence that they will display, in the hope of securing them.

Man differs from other animals in one very important respect, and that is that he has some desires which are, so to speak, infinite, which can never be fully gratified, and which would keep him restless even in Paradise. The boa constrictor, when he has had an adequate meal, goes to sleep, and does not wake until he needs another meal. Human beings, for the most part, are not like this.

Acquisitiveness — the wish to possess as much as possible of goods, or the title to goods — is a motive which, I suppose, has its origin in a combination of fear with the desire for necessaries.

Acquisitiveness, although it is the mainspring of the capitalist system, is by no means the most powerful of the motives that survive the conquest of hunger. Rivalry is a much stronger motive. Over and over again in Mohammedan history, dynasties have come to grief because the sons of a sultan by different mothers could not agree, and in the resulting civil war universal ruin resulted. The same sort of thing happens in modern Europe. When the British Government very unwisely allowed the Kaiser to be present at a naval review at Spithead, the thought which arose in his mind was not the one which we had intended. What he thought was, "I must have a Navy as good as Grandmamma's." And from this thought have sprung all our subsequent troubles. The world would be a happier place than it is if acquisitiveness were always stronger than rivalry. But in fact, a great many men will cheerfully face impoverishment if they can thereby secure complete ruin for their rivals. Hence the present level of taxation. Vanity is a motive of immense potency. Anyone who has much to do with children knows how they are constantly performing some antic, and saying "Look at me." "Look at me" is one of the most fundamental desires of the human heart. It can take innumerable forms, from buffoonery to the pursuit of posthumous fame.

One of the troubles about vanity is that it grows with what it feeds on. The more you are talked about, the more you will wish to be talked about. The condemned murderer who is allowed to see the account of his trial in the press is indignant if he finds a newspaper which has reported it inadequately. And the more he finds about himself in other newspapers, the more indignant he will be with the one whose reports are meagre. Politicians and literary men are in the same case. And the more famous they become, the more difficult the press-cutting agency finds it to satisfy them. It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the influence of vanity throughout the range of human life, from the child of three to the potentate at whose frown the world trembles. Mankind have even committed the impiety of attributing similar desires to the Deity, whom they imagine avid for continual praise. But great as is the influence of the motives we have been considering, there is one which outweighs them all. I mean the love of power. Love of power is closely akin to vanity, but it is not by any means the same thing. What vanity needs for its satisfaction is glory, and it is easy to have glory without power. The people who enjoy the greatest glory in the United States are film stars, but they can be put in their place by the Committee for Un-American Activities, which enjoys no glory whatever.

Power, like vanity, is insatiable. Nothing short of omnipotence could satisfy it completely. And as it is especially the vice of energetic men, the causal efficacy of love of power is out of all proportion to its frequency. It is, indeed, by far the strongest motive in the lives of important men. Love of power is greatly increased by the experience of power, and this applies to petty power as well as to that of potentates.

The pursuit of knowledge is, I think, mainly actuated by love of power. And so are all advances in scientific technique. In politics, also, a reformer may have just as strong a love of power as a despot. It would be a complete mistake to decry love of power altogether as a motive. Whether you will be led by this motive to actions which are useful, or to actions which are pernicious, depends upon the social system, and upon your capacities. If your capacities are theoretical or technical, you will contribute to knowledge or technique, and, as a rule, your activity will be useful. If you are a politician you may be actuated by love of power, but as a rule this motive will join itself on to the desire to see some state of affairs realized which, for some reason, you prefer to the status quo. A great general may, like Alcibiades, be quite indifferent as to which side he fights on, but most generals have preferred to fight for their own country, and have, therefore, had other motives besides love of power. The politician may change sides so frequently as to find himself always in the majority, but most politicians have a preference for one party to the other, and subordinate their love of power to this preference.

Love of power as nearly pure as possible is to be seen in various different types of men. One type is the soldier of fortune, of whom Napoleon is the supreme example. Napoleon had, I think, no ideological preference for France over Corsica, but if he had become Emperor of Corsica he would not have been so great a man as he became by pretending to be a Frenchman. Such men, however, are not quite pure examples, since they also derive immense satisfaction from vanity. The purest type is that of the eminence grise — the power behind the throne that never appears in public, and merely hugs itself with the secret thought: "How little these puppets know who is pulling the strings." Friedrich von Holstein, who controlled the foreign policy of the German Empire from 1890 to 1906, illustrates this type to perfection. He lived in a slum; he never appeared in society; he avoided meeting the Emperor, except on one single occasion when the Emperor's importunity could not be resisted; he refused all invitations to Court functions, on the ground that he possessed no court dress. He had acquired secrets which enabled him to blackmail the Chancellor and many of the Kaiser's intimates. He used the power of blackmail, not to acquire wealth, or fame, or any other obvious advantage, but merely to compel the adoption of the foreign policy he preferred. In the East, similar characters were not very uncommon among eunuchs.

A great deal of work is sedentary, and most manual work exercises only a few specialized muscles. When crowds assemble in Trafalgar Square to cheer to the echo an announcement that the government has decided to have them killed, they would not do so if they had all walked twenty-five miles that day. This cure for bellicosity is, however, impracticable, and if the human race is to survive — a thing which is, perhaps, undesirable — other means must be found for securing an innocent outlet for the unused physical energy that produces love of excitement. This is a matter which has been too little considered, both by moralists and by social reformers. The social reformers are of the opinion that they have more serious things to consider. The moralists, on the other hand, are immensely impressed with the seriousness of all the permitted outlets of the love of excitement; the seriousness, however, in their minds, is that of Sin. Dance halls, cinemas, this age of jazz, are all, if we may believe our ears, gateways to Hell, and we should be better employed sitting at home contemplating our sins. I find myself unable to be in entire agreement with the grave men who utter these warnings. The devil has many forms, some designed to deceive the young, some designed to deceive the old and serious. If it is the devil that tempts the young to enjoy themselves, is it not, perhaps, the same personage that persuades the old to condemn their enjoyment? And is not condemnation perhaps merely a form of excitement appropriate to old age? And is it not, perhaps, a drug which — like opium — has to be taken in continually stronger doses to produce the desired effect? Is it not to be feared that, beginning with the wickedness of the cinema, we should be led step by step to condemn the opposite political party, dagoes, wops, Asiatics, and, in short, everybody except the fellow members of our club? And it is from just such condemnations, when widespread, that wars proceed. I have never heard of a war that proceeded from dance halls.

What is serious about excitement is that so many of its forms are destructive. It is destructive in those who cannot resist excess in alcohol or gambling. It is destructive when it takes the form of mob violence. And above all it is destructive when it leads to war. It is so deep a need that it will find harmful outlets of this kind unless innocent outlets are at hand. There are such innocent outlets at present in sport, and in politics so long as it is kept within constitutional bounds. But these are not sufficient, especially as the kind of politics that is most exciting is also the kind that does most harm. Civilized life has grown altogether too tame, and, if it is to be stable, it must provide harmless outlets for the impulses which our remote ancestors satisfied in hunting.

Interwoven with many other political motives are two closely related passions to which human beings are regrettably prone: I mean fear and hate. It is normal to hate what we fear, and it happens frequently, though not always, that we fear what we hate. I think it may be taken as the rule among primitive men, that they both fear and hate whatever is unfamiliar. They have their own herd, originally a very small one. And within one herd, all are friends, unless there is some special ground of enmity. Other herds are potential or actual enemies; a single member of one of them who strays by accident will be killed. An alien herd as a whole will be avoided or fought according to circumstances. It is this primitive mechanism which still controls our instinctive reaction to foreign nations. The completely untravelled person will view all foreigners as the savage regards a member of another herd. But the man who has travelled, or who has studied international politics, will have discovered that, if his herd is to prosper, it must, to some degree, become amalgamated with other herds.

We love those who hate our enemies, and if we had no enemies there would be very few people whom we should love. All this, however, is only true so long as we are concerned solely with attitudes towards other human beings. You might regard the soil as your enemy because it yields reluctantly a niggardly subsistence. You might regard Mother Nature in general as your enemy, and envisage human life as a struggle to get the better of Mother Nature. If men viewed life in this way, cooperation of the whole human race would become easy. And men could easily be brought to view life in this way if schools, newspapers, and politicians devoted themselves to this end. But schools are out to teach patriotism; newspapers are out to stir up excitement; and politicians are out to get re-elected. None of the three, therefore, can do anything towards saving the human race from reciprocal suicide.

There are two ways of coping with fear: one is to diminish the external danger, and the other is to cultivate Stoic endurance. The latter can be reinforced, except where immediate action is necessary, by turning our thoughts away from the cause of fear. The conquest of fear is of very great importance. Fear is in itself degrading; it easily becomes an obsession; it produces hate of that which is feared, and it leads headlong to excesses of cruelty. Nothing has so beneficent an effect on human beings as security. If an international system could be established which would remove the fear of war, the improvement in everyday mentality of everyday people would be enormous and very rapid. Fear, at present, overshadows the world. The atom bomb and the bacterial bomb, wielded by the wicked communist or the wicked capitalist as the case may be, make Washington and the Kremlin tremble, and drive men further along the road toward the abyss. If matters are to improve, the first and essential step is to find a way of diminishing fear.

The world at present is obsessed by the conflict of rival ideologies, and one of the apparent causes of conflict is the desire for the victory of our own ideology and the defeat of the other. I do not think that the fundamental motive here has much to do with ideologies. I think the ideologies are merely a way of grouping people, and that the passions involved are merely those which always arise between rival groups.

Ideologies, in fact, are one of the methods by which herds are created, and the psychology is much the same however the herd may have been generated. You may have been feeling that I have allowed only for bad motives, or, at best, such as are ethically neutral. I am afraid they are, as a rule, more powerful than more altruistic motives, but I do not deny that altruistic motives exist, and may, on occasion, be effective. The agitation against slavery in England in the early nineteenth century was indubitably altruistic, and was thoroughly effective.

I do not think it can be questioned that sympathy is a genuine motive, and that some people at some times are made somewhat uncomfortable by the sufferings of some other people. It is sympathy that has produced the many humanitarian advances of the last hundred years. We are shocked when we hear stories ofthe ill-treatment of lunatics, and there are now quite a number of asylums in which they are not ill-treated. Prisoners in Western countries are not supposed to be tortured, and when they are, there is an outcry if the facts are discovered. We do not approve of treating orphans as they are treated in Oliver Twist.

Perhaps the best hope for the future of mankind is that ways will be found of increasing the scope and intensity of sympathy.

Politics is concerned with herds rather than with individuals, and the passions which are important in politics are, therefore, those in which the various members of a given herd can feel alike.

Killing an enemy in a modern war is a very expensive operation. If you consider how many Germans were killed in the late war, and how much the victors are paying in income tax, you can, by a sum in long division, discover the cost of a dead German, and you will find it considerable. In the East, it is true, the enemies of the Germans have secured the ancient advantages of turning out the defeated population and occupying their lands. The Western victors, however, have secured no such advantages. It is obvious that modern war is not good business from a financial point of view. Although we won both the world wars, we should now be much richer if they had not occured. If men were actuated by self-interest, which they are not — except in the case of a few saints — the whole human race would cooperate. There would be no more wars, no more armies, no more navies, no more atom bombs. There would not be armies of propagandists employed in poisoning the minds of Nation A against Nation B, and reciprocally of Nation B against Nation A. There would not be armies of officials at frontiers to prevent the entry of foreign books and foreign ideas, however excellent in themselves. There would not be customs barriers to ensure the existence of many small enterprises where one big enterprise would be more economic. All this would happen very quickly if men desired their own happiness as ardently as they desired the misery of their neighbors. But, you will tell me, what is the use of these utopian dreams ? Moralists will see to it that we do not become wholly selfish, and until we do the millennium will be impossible.

I do not wish to seem to end upon a note of cynicism. I do not deny that there are better things than selfishness, and that some people achieve these things. I maintain, however, on the one hand, that there are few occasions upon which large bodies of men, such as politics is concerned with, can rise above selfishness, while, on the other hand, there are a very great many circumstances in which populations will fall below selfishness, if selfishness is interpreted as enlightened self-interest. And among those occasions on which people fall below self-interest are most of the occasions on which they are convinced that they are acting from idealistic motives. Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power. When you see large masses of men swayed by what appear to be noble motives, it is as well to look below the surface and ask yourself what it is that makes these motives effective. It is partly because it is so easy to be taken in by a facade of nobility that a psychological inquiry, such as I have been attempting, is worth making. I would say, in conclusion, that if what I have said is right, the main thing needed to make the world happy is intelligence. And this, after all, is an optimistic conclusion, because intelligence is a thing that can be fostered by known methods of education.

I also added a few quotes which contain some "fat", and that could be deleted, such as the following:

[Unlike the] utilitarian... I judge pleasure and pain to be of small importance compared to knowledge, the appreciation and contemplation of beauty, and a certain intrinsic excellence of mind which, apart from its practical effects, appears to me to deserve the name of virtue. [For] many years it seemed to me perfectly self-evident that pleasure is the only good and pain the only evil. Now, however, the opposite seems to me self-evident. What first turned me away from utilitarianism was the persuasion that I myself ought to pursue philosophy, although I had (and have still) no doubt that by doing economics and the theory of politics I could add more to human happiness. It appeared to me that the dignity of which human existence is capable is not attainable by devotion to the mechanism of life, and that unless the contemplation of eternal things is preserved, mankind will become no better than well-fed pigs. But I do not believe that such contemplation on the whole tends to happiness. It gives moments of delight, but these are outweighed by years of effort and depression.

Again, in regard to actual human existence, I have found myself giving honour to those who feel its tragedy, who think truly about Death, who are oppressed by ignoble things even when they are inevitable; yet these qualities appear to me to militate against happiness, not only to the possessors, but to all whom they affect. And, generally, the best life seems to me one which thinks truly and feels greatly about human things, and which, in addition, contemplates the world of beauty and of abstract truths. This last is, perhaps, my most anti-utilitarian opinion: I hold all knowledge that is concerned with things that actually exist – all that is commonly called Science – to be of very slight value compared to the knowledge which, like philosophy and mathematics, is concerned with ideal and eternal objects, and is freed from this miserable world which God has made.

The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows: 1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything. 2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light. 3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed. 4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory. 5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found. 6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you. 7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric. 8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter. 9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it. 10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.

Friends, This is an occasion that I hardly know how to find words for. I am more touched than I can say, and more deeply than I can ever hope to express. I have to give my very warmest possible thanks to those who have worked to produce this occasion: to the performers, whose exquisite music, exquisitely performed, was so full of delight; to those who worked in less conspicuous ways, like my friend Mr Schoenman; and to all those who have given me gifts — gifts which are valuable in themselves, and also as expressions of an undying hope for this dangerous world. I have a very simple creed: that life and joy and beauty are better than dusty death, and I think when we listen to such music as we heard today we must all of us feel that the capacity to produce such music, and the capacity to hear such music, is a thing worth preserving and should not be thrown away in foolish squabbles. You may say it's a simple creed, but I think everything important is very simple indeed. I've found that creed sufficient, and I should think that a great many of you would also find it sufficient, or else you would hardly be here. But now I just want to say how it's difficult, when one has embarked upon a course which invites a greater or less degree of persecution and obloquy and abuse, to find instead that one is welcomed as I have been today. It makes one feel rather humble, and I feel I must try to live up to the feelings that have produced this occasion. I hope I shall; and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

That's a start. I think it is possible to trim the article even further, but I would like to hear your thoughts first. Thank you for your consideration.

Hi Daniel, I just read the previous discussion you had, and I must say I am not convinced about the need to trim this article. I do approve with the splitting of the article, since the article could be considered to long to navigate. If it was up to me I would split this article even more. If you experience the problem that important quotes are no longer in this article, there are different options. For example putting some of those quotes back in this "main article". -- Mdd (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mdd, thank you for your input. Yes, that is a very good suggestion (which UDScott happened to mention in our discussion), and one that I think we should indeed follow, if there are important quotes in other pages that should appear in the main article, as is the case now.

Anyhow, I should like to ask you why you said that you are "not convinced about the need to trim this article", but you would still "split this article even more" if it was up to you. Couldn't trimming be a good (better) way to reduce the size of the article, or are you opposed to trimming on principle? Thanks. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC) 22:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

In short, I think splitting articles creates new possibilities, while trimming articles could create all sorts of conflicts. Articles or sections should be trimmed if there are copyright concerns, but if not why bother? Put your limited energy in the exploration of those new possibilities; for example, improve those new articles here, or create new Wikipedia article about those separate books. -- Mdd (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mdd, please let us not change the subject (such as what I should do with my time). For the record, I do plan to contribute to the Wikiquote pages of Russell's books, in the future. In fact, I remember adding to "A History of Western Philosophy" a few quotes about Nietzsche, after reading the book, not so long ago. In any case, one could wonder what is the point of contributing to a page that only very few people read (and which is even longer than the Bertrand Russell article), when there is still so much room for improvement in the main page.

Indeed, my answer to your question ("if not why bother?") is that I care about the quality of the Bertrand Russell main article. (I am sure you do too, of course.) Given that its main page is so long, if there is "fat" in it that could be removed (as I think there is — see above), without any controversy, to give way to more important quotes, I would not mind to put my "limited energy" into that work. I hope that clears up my intentions, so that we can once again focus on suggestions to improve the article. Best wishes, ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that the quotes (you selected) could be removed "without any controversy"? I haven't checked the history of those quotes, so I ask you: Are these quotes you added to the article, and don't you find them interesting any more? Or are you judging contributions by others? If so I find it very disturbing, that you put yourself in that position: Developing Wikiquote is no exact science, there is not one objective, not one sense of quality. -- Mdd (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a closer look at Russell's Nobel Lecture, "What Desires Are Politically Important?". That section in the current article contains about 3310 words, while the Noble lecture at nobelprize.org contains 5708 words. Now this seem to be quite a violation of Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. Here you seem to have a legitimate argument to trim this section, if I am not mistaken. -- Mdd (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mdd. First let me apologize for my last reply to you. (It had been a long day, my brain was tired, and apparently I couldn't think properly). I should have phrased it better, and I hope that you weren't offended by it. Now, to answer your questions: note that, before saying "without any controversy", I wrote "if". I do want to hear your thoughts first, and see if that is indeed something that should be trimmed.

As to the origin of the quotes, the ones from "What Desires Are Politically Important?" were not added by myself (the others were). You say that my judging the contributions by others is "very disturbing", and, to a point, I agree with you (though I would have chosen different words). However, having read through the whole Bertrand Russell article twice, I do think that it is possible to trim it (see above). But note that all I have done is ask you to consider that. I did not go ahead and delete any quotes without explanation. Besides, it is not as if I would enjoy deleting any quote. I very much respect and admire all contributors. Please don't think that I would suggest trimming quotes lightly.

That is not to say that I do not think we should discuss it. I do, especially now that important sections are being moved to other pages (and, it seems, everyone agrees that the page is too long). That is why I respectfully asked your consideration of the above proposal. And it appears that you agree with me that it is sensible (at least concerning "What Desires Are Politically Important?"). Best regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I too am loathe to trim the page - usually, my trimming efforts are confined to works like films or TV shows, where copyright concerns are the drivers. In this case, I would again recommend continuing to split out works that contain enough quotes to support their own page. If, as you have suggested, you feel it is important to retain key quotes on the main author page, I would suggest you do so in the manner that was done on other prodigious author's pages (see how Crime and Punishment was handled on Dostoevsky's page for an example) where a sampling of key quotes is repeated on the author's page (as well as on the page for the work), with a note stating that these and additional quotes may be found on another page. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Template {{main}} is useful for this. I would recommend keeping the number of duplicated quotes to a minimum, ordinarily two or three. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, no trimming. I will try to follow UDScott's suggestion, and see if it works out well. Thanks. Daniel Tomé (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, you may be correct on that one. But I'll leave that to someone more expert on these matters. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, there could be reason for more concern here? Some quotes exceed the maximum of 250 words per quote, and for example the A History of Western Philosophy article contains about 29.000 words, while the original is about 360.000 words. This is about 8%, far more then the "1.25% of the total content of a book" the Wikiquote:Limits on quotations mentions. -- Mdd (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is not my area - I would try to bring BD2412 into the conversation, as he has knowledge in this area and has commented extensively on it in the past. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am very much tempted to trim the "What Desires Are Politically Important?" section, to be honest, for the reasons mentioned above, in particular because it is almost a copy/paste of the Nobel lecture and, as such, it not only takes (unproportionally) too much space of the main article, but is also a copyright violation. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been a while (three weeks or so) since Mdd pointed out the copyvio issue and no one has done a thing about it, so I will contradict myself here and trim that section now just to show that it can be done without anything important being lost. Indeed, I will go ahead and make a few controversial edits to the page; please do feel free to revert my work, of course, but note that I am just trying to improve the page, as you all are. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the section "What Desires Are Politically Important? (1950)", as you can see, was only slightly trimmed. After my last edit, it still contains well over 30% of the original text (which is nowhere close to 1.25%). ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, thanks for being bold and setting things in motion again. I think there are multiple issues here.

Possible copyvio in this article : We are far from sure about that. American copyright is rather complicated, especially because the copyright of a lot of 20th century works (from after 1923) had to be renewed in 1976 (if I am not mistaken). And this seems to be the case here, or not?.

Getting some expert opinion : We could need some (external) expert opinion here, but I am not going to ask for it without any approval

Limits on quotations : This is something only the Wikiquote community can decide on. We could propose a more permanent solution, and start a vote, for example.

Trimming of article sections : I think this should be handled with just as much care as creating articles. First some research is needed to check, which of the quotes are the most notable, and these should be preserved... etc.

Yes, I agree with everything you say. I do appreciate you bringing up these legitimate concerns. I admit that maybe it was too hasty of me to make such an edit.

I am not much worried about copyright issues, at the moment, but I did read the Nobelprize.org statement:The documents and materials presented at Nobelprize.org are generally protected by copyright and related rights or as trademarks and trade names. For use of such material, permission in writing from Nobel Media AB or the Nobel Foundation is required. and, in particular, To use or translate a Nobel Lecture, a presentation speech, a banquet speech or a biography, permission has to be granted by the Nobel Foundation.
So, if possible, getting an expert opinion would indeed be wise. (My rationale was that the section, as it stood, had well over 50% of the original text intact, and plain common sense tells us that something is probably not right when Wikiquote (not Wikisource) has a section so large for a text so small.) Sincerely, Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Trimming of the "What Desires Are Politically Important? (1950)" section[edit]

In the section "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920)" section one ore more quotes seem to be rearranged

The "Sceptical Essays (1928)" seemed to be moved to a separate article, and the section here is severely trimmed

Quotes in the "What Desires Are Politically Important? (1950)" seems to be partly rearranged and partly trimmed

And within a day an other 17 smaller edits have been made on different parts of the article. Now I must admit I have the tendency to similar edit patterns, and for that I got some advice the other day, which would suite here as well: Split larger edits in multiple parts. In order to let others participate, it's important to have a (simple) understanding what exactly has been trimmed. And it would be nice if no more new edits are made, especially if it's already under debate om the talk page. -- Mdd (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the confusion, but yes I did the slight trimming in only oneedit, the same one where I moved the content of a book (Unpopular Essays) to another page, so please see the section "What Desires Are Politically Important" there.
As to the other two sections, specifically,

In the section "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920)", I just reduced the use of bold (I did not "rearrange" any quotes);

The same goes for the section "Sceptical Essays (1928)". No, it was not moved to a separate article, nor was it "severely trimmed". It is exactly the same as it was (only with less use of bold), except for one quote that appeared twice, one of which I deleted to avoid repetition (namely What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite).

The other/following edits are unrelated to this (they are basically just additions of pictures and quotes from different works).
I won't stop making edits to the Bertrand Russell page just because of this issue, that would be silly; but I will certainly follow the advice "Split larger edits in multiple parts" to avoid confusion in the future.
P.S. I have just finished adding back quotes to the "What Desires Are Politically Important" section, after consultation with Kalki; I still think the text is probably too large, but I'll let others decide. Regards, ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the "Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence." quote is supported as genuine Russell. It had been listed under misattributed, and I deleted it today. I will leave it up to others whether it goes in as a true quote or as disputed. I believe it can be attributed, as this quote has been attested by his colleagues and was told frequently while he was alive. See Wesley C. Salmon's "Religion and Science: A New Look at Hume's 'Dialogues'" in Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Feb., 1978), pp. 176. Salmon relates the story in a footnote. — User:BenjerMcVeigh 17:20, 1 Nov 2016 (UTC)

It's a famous quote, so (whether it be genuine or spurious) it shouldn't be deleted from the article. I moved it to the "Attributed" section, retaining the source you mentioned. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)